Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 2/2016

01-02-2016 | Radiological Education

Information about radiation dose and risks in connection with radiological examinations: what patients would like to know

Authors: Leila Ukkola, Heljä Oikarinen, Anja Henner, Hilkka Honkanen, Marianne Haapea, Osmo Tervonen

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 2/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To find out patients’ wishes for the content and sources of the information concerning radiological procedures.

Methods

A questionnaire providing quantitative and qualitative data was prepared. It comprised general information, dose and risks of radiation, and source of information. Two tables demonstrating different options to indicate the dose or risks were also provided. Patients could give one or many votes. Altogether, 147 patients (18–85 years) were interviewed after different radiological examinations using these devices.

Results

95 % (139/147) of the patients wished for dose and risk information. Symbols (78/182 votes) and verbal scale (56/182) were preferred to reveal the dose, while verbal (83/164) and numerical scale (55/164) on the risk of fatal cancer were preferred to indicate the risks. Wishes concerning the course, options and purpose of the examination were also expressed. Prescriber (3.9 on a scale 1–5), information letter (3.8) and radiographer (3.3) were the preferred sources. Patients aged 66–85 years were reluctant to choose electronic channels.

Conclusions

Apart from general information, patients wish for dose and risk information in connection with radiological examinations. The majority preferred symbols to indicate dose and verbal scales to indicate risks, and the preferred source of information was the prescriber or information letter.

Key points

95 % of patients expect information on the dose and risks of radiation.
Symbols and verbal scale are preferred to indicate the dose.
Verbal and numerical scales are preferred to indicate fatal cancer risk.
Patients expect information on course, options and purpose of examination.
Prescriber, information letter and radiographer are popular sources of the overall information.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Davies HE, Wathen CG, Gleeson FV (2011) The risks of radiation exposure related to diagnostic imaging and how to minimise them. BMJ 342:d947PubMedCrossRef Davies HE, Wathen CG, Gleeson FV (2011) The risks of radiation exposure related to diagnostic imaging and how to minimise them. BMJ 342:d947PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Brenner DJ (2010) Should we be concerned about the rapid increase in CT usage? Rev Environ Health 25:63–68PubMedCrossRef Brenner DJ (2010) Should we be concerned about the rapid increase in CT usage? Rev Environ Health 25:63–68PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Brenner DJ (2010) Medical imaging in the 21st century–getting the best bang for the rad. N Engl J Med 362:943–945PubMedCrossRef Brenner DJ (2010) Medical imaging in the 21st century–getting the best bang for the rad. N Engl J Med 362:943–945PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Amis ES Jr, Butler PF, Applegate KE et al (2007) American College of Radiology white paper on radiation dose in medicine. J Am Coll Radiol 4:272–284PubMedCrossRef Amis ES Jr, Butler PF, Applegate KE et al (2007) American College of Radiology white paper on radiation dose in medicine. J Am Coll Radiol 4:272–284PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Malone J, Guleria R, Craven C et al (2012) Justification of diagnostic medical exposures, some practical issues: report of an International Atomic Energy Agency Consultation. Br J Radiol 85:523–538PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Malone J, Guleria R, Craven C et al (2012) Justification of diagnostic medical exposures, some practical issues: report of an International Atomic Energy Agency Consultation. Br J Radiol 85:523–538PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Oikarinen H, Meriläinen S, Pääkkö E, Karttunen A, Nieminen MT, Tervonen O (2009) Unjustified CT examinations in young patients. Eur Radiol 19:1161–1165PubMedCrossRef Oikarinen H, Meriläinen S, Pääkkö E, Karttunen A, Nieminen MT, Tervonen O (2009) Unjustified CT examinations in young patients. Eur Radiol 19:1161–1165PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference International Commission on Radiological Protection (2007) The 2007 Recommendations of the ICRP. Publication 103. Ann ICRP 37 (2–4) International Commission on Radiological Protection (2007) The 2007 Recommendations of the ICRP. Publication 103. Ann ICRP 37 (2–4)
12.
go back to reference Nievelstein RAJ, Frush DP (2012) Should we obtain informed consent for examinations that expose patients to radiation? Am J Roentgenol 199:664–669CrossRef Nievelstein RAJ, Frush DP (2012) Should we obtain informed consent for examinations that expose patients to radiation? Am J Roentgenol 199:664–669CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Lee CI, Haims AH, Monico EP, Brink JA, Forman HP (2004) Diagnostic CT scans: assessment of patient, physician, and radiologist awareness of radiation dose and possible risks. Radiology 2:393–398CrossRef Lee CI, Haims AH, Monico EP, Brink JA, Forman HP (2004) Diagnostic CT scans: assessment of patient, physician, and radiologist awareness of radiation dose and possible risks. Radiology 2:393–398CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Thomas KE, Parnell-Parmley JE, Haidar S et al (2006) Assessment of radiation dose awareness among pediatricians. Pediatr Radiol 36:823–832PubMedCrossRef Thomas KE, Parnell-Parmley JE, Haidar S et al (2006) Assessment of radiation dose awareness among pediatricians. Pediatr Radiol 36:823–832PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Koutalonis M, Horrocks J (2012) Justification in clinical radiological practice. A survey among staff of five London hospitals. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 149:124–137PubMedCrossRef Koutalonis M, Horrocks J (2012) Justification in clinical radiological practice. A survey among staff of five London hospitals. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 149:124–137PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference International Atomic Energy Agency (2009) Report of a consultation on justification of patient exposures in medical imaging. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 135:137–144CrossRef International Atomic Energy Agency (2009) Report of a consultation on justification of patient exposures in medical imaging. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 135:137–144CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Royal College of Radiologists (2012) Making the best use of clinical radiology, 7th edn. RCR, London Royal College of Radiologists (2012) Making the best use of clinical radiology, 7th edn. RCR, London
20.
go back to reference Kelley K, Clark B, Brown V, Sitzia J (2003) Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research. Int J for Qual Health Care 15:261–266CrossRef Kelley K, Clark B, Brown V, Sitzia J (2003) Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research. Int J for Qual Health Care 15:261–266CrossRef
24.
go back to reference European Society of Radiology (ESR) (2013) ESR statement on radiation protection: globalisation, personalised medicine and safety (the GPS approach). Insights Imaging 4:737–739CrossRef European Society of Radiology (ESR) (2013) ESR statement on radiation protection: globalisation, personalised medicine and safety (the GPS approach). Insights Imaging 4:737–739CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Cardinal JS, Gunderman RB, Tarver RD (2011) Informing patients about risks and benefits of radiology examinations: a review article. J Am Coll Radiol 8:402–408PubMedCrossRef Cardinal JS, Gunderman RB, Tarver RD (2011) Informing patients about risks and benefits of radiology examinations: a review article. J Am Coll Radiol 8:402–408PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Pringle MB, Natesh BG, Konieczny KM (2013) Patient information leaflet on mastoid surgery risks: assessment of readability and patient understanding. J Laryngol Otol 127:1078–1083PubMedCrossRef Pringle MB, Natesh BG, Konieczny KM (2013) Patient information leaflet on mastoid surgery risks: assessment of readability and patient understanding. J Laryngol Otol 127:1078–1083PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Janssen NB, Oort FJ, Fockens P, Willems DL, de Haes HC, Smets EM (2009) Under what conditions do patients want to be informed about their risk of a complication? A vignette study. J Med Ethics 35:276–282PubMedCrossRef Janssen NB, Oort FJ, Fockens P, Willems DL, de Haes HC, Smets EM (2009) Under what conditions do patients want to be informed about their risk of a complication? A vignette study. J Med Ethics 35:276–282PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Boutis K, Cogollo W, Fischer J, Freedman SB, David GB, Thomas KE (2013) Parental knowledge of potential cancer risks from exposure to computed tomography. Pediatrics 132:305–311PubMedCrossRef Boutis K, Cogollo W, Fischer J, Freedman SB, David GB, Thomas KE (2013) Parental knowledge of potential cancer risks from exposure to computed tomography. Pediatrics 132:305–311PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Larson DB, Rader SB, Forman HP, Fenton LZ (2007) Informing parents about CT radiation exposure: It’s OK to tell them. Am J Roentgenol 189:271–275CrossRef Larson DB, Rader SB, Forman HP, Fenton LZ (2007) Informing parents about CT radiation exposure: It’s OK to tell them. Am J Roentgenol 189:271–275CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Baerlocher MO, Detsky AS (2010) Discussing radiation risks associated with CT scans with patients. JAMA 304:2170–2171PubMedCrossRef Baerlocher MO, Detsky AS (2010) Discussing radiation risks associated with CT scans with patients. JAMA 304:2170–2171PubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference Dauer LT, Thornton RH, Hay JL, Balter R, Williamson MJ, St. Germain J (2011) Fears, feelings, and facts: interactively communicating benefits and risks of medical radiation with patients. Am J Roentgenol 196:756–761CrossRef Dauer LT, Thornton RH, Hay JL, Balter R, Williamson MJ, St. Germain J (2011) Fears, feelings, and facts: interactively communicating benefits and risks of medical radiation with patients. Am J Roentgenol 196:756–761CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Brink JA, Goske MJ, Patti JA (2012) Informed decision making trumps informed consent for medical imaging with ionizing radiation. Radiology 262:11–14PubMedCrossRef Brink JA, Goske MJ, Patti JA (2012) Informed decision making trumps informed consent for medical imaging with ionizing radiation. Radiology 262:11–14PubMedCrossRef
34.
go back to reference Semelka RC, Armao DM, Elias J Jr, Picano E (2012) The information imperative: is it time for an informed consent process explaining the risks of medical radiation? Radiology 262:15–18PubMedCrossRef Semelka RC, Armao DM, Elias J Jr, Picano E (2012) The information imperative: is it time for an informed consent process explaining the risks of medical radiation? Radiology 262:15–18PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Information about radiation dose and risks in connection with radiological examinations: what patients would like to know
Authors
Leila Ukkola
Heljä Oikarinen
Anja Henner
Hilkka Honkanen
Marianne Haapea
Osmo Tervonen
Publication date
01-02-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 2/2016
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3838-5

Other articles of this Issue 2/2016

European Radiology 2/2016 Go to the issue